Goodbye Manual Labour..I give you 10 years at best
Community Forums/Technical Discourse/Goodbye Manual Labour..I give you 10 years at best
| ||
| http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-27/meet-handle-nightmare-inducing-robot-boston-dynamics Pretty athletic and agile for a machine....and they will only get better..... |
| ||
| Nice machine! [rant removed] |
| ||
| I suspect a battery breakthrough in terms of charge time and capacity would really help push the robotic revolution as well as electric cars. |
| ||
| Love this. I hope it will happen quickly though, not slowly, for transitions can bring misery. The 4th technological revolution will change our entire society (if not destroyed before by some disaster/war of course, transforming the world in a giant Mad Max scene). There are already discussions about robotax for the machines will be going on day and night relentlessly without workers, making products more cheap, if done on solar/clean/cheap energy (it will even drive 3rd world countries out of business=new problem ), but there still needs to be a market for the products, so people will need to be given a basic income. People apparently calculated this to be feasible. In time this will change the entire business model into one that provides for people instead and if you ask me, eventually eradicates the need for money in about 150 years if not sooner. Boston Dynamics has been purchased by Google, while developing things for DARPA, but hey that's where we got the internet from anyway. I also like.. SpotMini: Atlas, The Next Generation: Amazing how this 'guy' ploughs through the snow, slipping and correcting itself. (for some reason it reminds me of a Star Wars Battle Droid) |
| ||
| If you would see in which irregular environments with dynamic obstacles (when you cut something or destroy something or change the position of something) i sometimes work, in sometimes harsh weather conditions (strong wind, heavy rain, muddy ground, icy ground) i say this tech is far to replace all kinds of manual works. Maybe to carry some objects in a regular environment with static obstacles in some industries/cities with dedicated roads... Also there is a problem of making a decision to cut/destroy/remove something in a specific environment while avoiding to produce damaging consequences. And even if many of these robots end up replacing humans, we will have to repair them... (or to destroy them if they annoy us ahahah :P) |
| ||
| lol Or.. have another robot repair the damaged ones. :-) And even scarier for some people(even though in it's infancy): This Smart AI Can Now Steal Code to Write Its Own Programs But for now it can do 5 line code only, so no worries for at least the next 10 years. |
| ||
| Danilo - get over your butthurt at living in a second rate country. |
| ||
| get over your butthurt at living in a second rate country. Im gonna go out on a limb here and guess your American. If so, do you think comments like that helps the image of your country?To think you once had the sympathy of the world after your greatest tragedy, yet managed to piss it all away in just a few years. Now you are more hated than ever, by people across the world. Good job! On-Topic: This 4-th revolution is not going to help the little man at all :( The rich will get richer, us mortals will have to compete over fewer and fewer jobs for less and less pay. Our systems were not built for the level of technology we have now, we are still slaves to the few. And until that changes, no manner of technology is going to save us. |
| ||
| > Im gonna go out on a limb here and guess your American. If so, do you think comments like that helps the image of your country? Perhaps I should have told him thanks and please give us a second helping of BS? |
| ||
| @grable>>people who live in the united states and the us government (and the us army) are 2 different things. I live in France, i have french papers, but i don't agree with what the french government (and the french army) did/does... (but we are not in democracy here, even if the people in power never stop to use this word) |
| ||
| people who live in the united states and the us government (and the us army) are 2 different things. I know, i just tried to impress upon the guy that comments like these doesnt exactly help the issue. Perhaps I should have told him thanks and please give us a second helping of BS? Sometimes its better to say nothing.I can understand its not fun when people shit all over your country like that, but when it relates to the US most if it is rightfully deserved. Maybe instead of venting that frustration against strangers on the internet, use it to affect change where you live. Im not saying that its easy by any means to do that though. And the US isnt the only shitty country on this planet either, the idiots running my country mostly do stupid shit too :( This kinda relates to the Topic as well. Most if not all governments are run by greedy power mad people, making any advancement in technology just another tool they can use to divide and oppress us. I would say overthrow your government. But that would just make you a terrorist these days so maybe not be such a good idea, until you have no other choice that is. |
| ||
| @dynaman - not sure which country Danilo lives in but I'd hardly call the US a first rate country. There is so much inequality there. No access to universal free first rate health care. University degrees go to the highest bidder rather than someone based on merit. You have huge problems with racism. I live in Australia and twenty years ago I would have called us first rate but our education systems are failing, homelessness is becoming a major problem along with housing affordability, our government is in bed with Rupert Murdoch and the coal industry. So I'm not sure which country I'd call first rate now. If humanity had a golden age I'd say we've peaked twenty or thirty years ago and are now in steady and steepening decline. |
| ||
| Imagine going to work on it. :) |
| ||
| As a bit of an aside....i put this on my facebook feed as a summary earlier: These links are the tip of the iceberg highlighting our future as human beings. Robots replacing every conceivable role in society. From manual labour through software engineering to law and medicine and even romantic partners. Genetic enhancements to human beings for a price yet undetermined, potential immortality and disease free existence. There are always winners and losers. Will our current economic and administrative systems be ready for the changes that are to come? Will our ethics and moral systems be able to navigate the minefield of dilemmas? Do you see a positive, negative or mixed future for humanity? Where will humans find their source of meaning and identity if their roles are taken by machines? Will the revolution be bloodless, in more ways than one? http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-27/meet-handle-nightmare-inducing-robot-boston-dynamics http://www.sciencealert.com/smart-ai-can-now-steal-code-to-write-its-own-programs https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_robot#/search https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/law-firms-are-starting-to-use-robot-lawyers-2016-7 http://www.geneticsandsociety.org/article.php?id=8500 https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/mishtalk.com/2016/10/25/worlds-first-commercial-driverless-delivery-45000-cans-of-beer/amp/ |
| ||
| It is called EVOLUTION.If there was none you would be using Ox blood and a rock. |
| ||
| > @dynaman - not sure which country Danilo lives in but I'd hardly call the US a first rate country. Well, everyone has an opinion. I notice nobody took Danilo to task on his however. Strange how badmouthing the USA is considered OK but when we call the badmouthing what it is we are "ugly americans". |
| ||
| Ok, let's get this thread back on track. So it seems to me that truckers are going to be first in the AI firing line. Transport companies are not going to say no if a viable solution comes up that means they can reduce staff costs. Perhaps it'll be only for major routes at first as they can be mapped and reliably negotiated by the AI. The company will need to monitor their vehicles and provide rapid breakdown response - probably a contracted company for that. Also raises the possibility of trucks being hacked and diverted on the road, so they may need to add extra security to the vehicles - make them harder to get into etc.. |
| ||
| Yeah, long distance trucking is a no brainer to automate - unlike humans they can drive 24/7 without getting tired. (although how long until you start seeing heists where people block in a semi carrying electronics and force it to stop in the middle of nowhere?) |
| ||
| until you start seeing heists No more likely than with a human driver, though. An automated system can recognize the situation and call the police, or even (gasp) take defensive actions... |
| ||
| No more likely than with a human driver, though. An automated system can recognize the situation and call the police, or even (gasp) take defensive actions... Except there is not much defensive action that you can take if you have a car in front, behind, and next to you that are all forcing you to slow down. Automated systems will pretty much be forced to adhere to the flow of surrounding traffic and won't be permitted to just plow through at the risk of endangering humans. There's already cases of criminals stealing a load of ipads and iphones from a truck while it was driving 55mph on the freeway http://www.trailermatics.com/ipads-and-iphones-stolen-from-truck-and-trailer-while-driving-90-km/ And at least I guess automated trucks won't need to stay overnight at truckstops, which can currently be a problem with human drivers. Portable RFID readers make it much easier for criminals to identify trucks with interesting cargo that's worth their while. |
| ||
| ..can automated system change a perforated tyre, or quickly patch broken cooler radiator hose with duct tape, top up coolant with water from nearby river or maybe just piss in to bottle and top it up and continue driving until first repair station ? all that in the middle of nowhere..mm |
| ||
| NA Yes, but there'll be a cost benefit analysis pitting the AI's benefits against a human driver's requirements for rest/food/401k and I think the machine will win. I do think there'll be a demand for fast-response, nation-wide truck repair/retrieval. Maybe really big trucks that act like roadside dry docks for on the spot repair using robots? |
| ||
| ..i understand really..but i think society is just not ready for such thing, where pushing people out of jobs will simply cause horrible side effects..entire setup of economy(read, legal robbery) is set on so wrong way that i cent see implementation of all this things without some serious impact over entire society..people should have work available based on their skills/abilities, which is some form of taking care of each other, instead of coldly kick 'less skilled' out of the loop to starve and what not..if those machines are about to change something, then it should be changing life on to better, for everybody and not just bunch of heartless idiots controlling money (which is a scam for itself).. |
| ||
| na Totally agree but I can't help thinking of the Industrial Revolution and the turmoil that caused. Moreover, it seems to me that AI will certainly be first used as a means to reduce production costs with an emphasis on labour. Perhaps it all comes down to the rapidity of such change as human beings are very good at accepting gradual change (for better or worse) as the new 'normal', but sudden and wide spread change can foment strong resistance. |
| ||
| Well, i find interesting that in some movies where robots replace humans for some tasks, there are often some humans who reject that and sabotage the robots... Maybe this will happen in the future... There is also the problem of the responsibility of the robot when it causes some unexpected damages to buildings/vehicles/humans because it can only sense what it was designed to sense, and be "conscious" (consider the parameters and decide what to do) of only what it was designed to consider... So its decisions and adaptability will be limited (less than a capable well trained human) |
| ||
| there are often some humans who reject that and sabotage the robots... Maybe this will happen in the future... Luddite noun plural noun: Luddites a member of any of the bands of English workers who destroyed machinery, especially in cotton and woollen mills, which they believed was threatening their jobs (1811–16). derogatory a person opposed to increased industrialization or new technology. "a small-minded Luddite resisting progress" The Luddite movement began in Nottingham and culminated in a region-wide rebellion that lasted from 1811 to 1816. Mill owners took to shooting protesters and eventually the movement was brutally suppressed with military force. |
| ||
| BlitzMan: It is called EVOLUTION.If there was none you would be using Ox blood and a rock. Totaly agree. Can't put the cat back in the bag. until you start seeing heists No more likely than with a human driver, though. An automated system can recognize the situation and call the police, or even (gasp) take defensive actions... Example of some defensive actions(I'm sure more's possible): -Trucks will be monitored by GPS and if not moving for some time automatically a security firm or the police will come to the resque. -Also the AI could call the cops itself if notices trouble, sound a loud siren with flashing lights and while waiting for cavalery, bar all entraces, put electricity on the trucks body and perhaps at some crucial places have shooting devices installed that will have permission to react to tampering when confirmed by central that help will take longer than expected. -Drones could be launched to follow the robbers home if they still manage to take the merchandise. No-good-doers will have to be mighty quick and well prepped. :-) See: Bill Gates on robot tax And he's not the only one in the industry and govs thinking about this too. Even though some companies won't like it(just want highest profit they can get) it is inevitable- also for them. Otherwise in time there wouldn't be any consumers for their products left, only the rich happy few, which in turn would render automated mass production useless. People are smart enough to realize this. |
| ||
| [quote]but i think society is just not ready for such thing, where pushing people out of jobs will simply cause horrible side effects..entire setup of economy(read, legal robbery) is set on so wrong way that i cent see implementation of all this things without some serious impact over entire society.[]/quote] And that's exactly why there's already discussion starting about a basic universal income where people don't need to work to survive (it was actually on the ballot in Switzerland last year, although it didn't manage to get a majority vote), as well as voices to force companies to pay into unemployment/social security funds for every robot they have in service so the state can afford take care of increasing numbers of displaced workers. (Although where do you draw the line? full-on humanoid robots? self-driving trucks? automated package delivery? Electronic touchscreen ordering stations at your local fast food restaurant? Heck, technically every office desk PC makes the person using it more efficient, reducing the need for manpower) Eventually, if all manufacturing, farming, transportation, delivery and even military is (near) fully automated, there simply won't be enough jobs to go around to keep the majority of your working age population employed and self-sufficient. At some point, something HAS to change. |
| ||
A fictional product review from the not too distant future.... |
| ||
| about a basic universal income where people don't need to work to survive one of the candidate for president this year in France has talked about a basic survival income for all humans who have french papers (not necessarily from the France regions), and at the same time he encourages immigration and facilitate the acquirement of the french nationality, and with the health system we have here, all kinds of people are helped, even if they are self destroying their health with badhabits/addictions, you can see the problem in this stupid, unrealistic ideology. (and also what is the goal of doing that ? to decrease the level of all humans in a territory ?) Personally i prefer to work (part time) and not pay for this crazy ideology where all humans are considered equals with the same rights (even if they don't contribute the same, and for some only causes problems and annoyances) The replacement of some works by robots should not only make us consider the future problem of overpopulation (and hence limiting immigration, and limiting births, depending on the ressources of a region), but also put in place reasonable moderate eugenics (i am not talking about race here, more about physical/mental attributes and capability), because if the incapable, stupid, crazy reproduce more than the capable, intelligent, reasonable then what will become "humanity" ? (see the movie "idiocracy" to get an idea...) (i already can hear human rights proponents whining like little childs) :P |
| ||
| Personally i prefer to work (part time) and not pay for this crazy ideology where all humans are considered equals with the same rights (even if they don't contribute the same, and for some only causes problems and annoyances) The problem is that at SOME point in the not-too-distant future, there simply won't be enough jobs to go around for a majority of the population. Fast forward a bit, and you'll literally have millions of displaced truck drivers, taxi drivers, pilots, air traffic controllers, fast food cashiers, cleaners, farm workers, etc. who won't be able to find any job. Then what? There's a cost associated with living in a welfare state that won't let its citizens starve. The replacement of some works by robots should not only make us consider the future problem of overpopulation (and hence limiting immigration, and limiting births, depending on the ressources of a region), but also put in place reasonable moderate eugenics (i am not talking about race here, more about physical/mental attributes and capability), because if the incapable, stupid, crazy reproduce more than the capable, intelligent, reasonable then what will become "humanity" ? (see the movie "idiocracy" to get an idea...) Except everyone always seem to think things like that should only apply to "those people", never themselves. Do you really want your government to have the power and means to decide that YOU personally aren't worthy to have kids, and take action against it? |
| ||
| China has enough horror stories re eugenics with the one child policy (I work for a Chinese company - few have siblings and some have terrible stories to tell) - on paper it sounds a good idea to limit who can bear children but in practical human terms it is pretty horrid. |
| ||
| ..overpopulation ?? Scam as almost everything served by governments worldwide.. http://brilliantmaps.com/fertility-rates/ |
| ||
| @xlsior>>so you chose to disregard the words "reasonable moderate" for some reason... I was expecting such answers anyway. I am not saying to be extreme, but rather to think long term about what humans will become if you let too much "freedom" (in self destruction). About robots replacing humans for some works, it is a choice not an obligation, and the only advantages i see for the moment is to provide more productive more obedient slaves for big companies and for the governments and for the "rich" people (those who possess the more virtual paper/electric "money", arbitrarily) |
| ||
| I felt like looking up our ABS (Bureau of Statistics) to get an idea of the numbers of employed people in various jobs that may be affected. Some figures: Australian Population 25,000,000 Employed Population 10,000,000 Truck Driving jobs 180,000 Storeperson jobs 130,000 Let us assume that similar easily automated jobs by 2030 come to a total of about 1,000,000 out of the 10,000,000 or 10%... By 2030 perhaps 10% of Australians in the labour market will have skills that are not in demand, or no skills at all. Current unemployment levels (% in labour market without a job) = ~5% I estimate that by 2030 that will rise to about 15%. |
| ||
| so you chose to disregard the words "reasonable moderate" Because there's no such thing, really -- 1) Who determines what's "reasonable" or "moderate"? ANY governmental interference infringes on your personal freedoms there 2) Slippery slope, and all that. |
| ||
| put it this way we are victims of our own success if it wasn't for the constant plow forward of technology none of this would be possible. |
| ||
| Now IBM is planting a stake of its own. Today, the company announced plans to offer commercial quantum machines to businesses and research organizations within the year. These machines will not bring quantum supremacy—namely, they won’t surpass the performance of traditional machines. But much like Google, IBM claims it will reach that threshold over the next few years. “We are reaching a key moment,” says IBM research vice president Dario Gill. https://www.wired.com/2017/03/race-sell-true-quantum-computers-begins-really-exist/ |
| ||
| robots, quantum computers- what really is the point? Is it to make life "Better"? I would hardly think so. Is it to establish an unassailable conglomeration of power over greater and greater resources and populations? This seems more likely. As it is now in what we called "developed" nations, all our financial holdings, properties, family links, friend links, addresses, travel, apparently in England you are photographed with monitoring cameras in public areas-(the US and many other countries also), your "online" footprint is almost entirely aggregated and indexed... well the list goes on and on. Robots for wars is almost a certainty. Factories for goods have many robots. The key question is- Who are the visionary's that intend to do the programming of the super AI's? What are their philosophical beliefs? What if the general population refuses to participate in the visionary's dreamworld? Will we be forced to participate by having our livelihood threatened and our modicum of independence curtailed? Do we even deserve independence if we do nothing to assert it? Re: Wired article- notice that if you refuse ads-you cannot read the news. This is a massively growing trend on the web. |
| ||
| It's in our nature, to replicate. To see our offspring strive and achieve higher goals. It's also in our nature to be inquisitive, to see what technological advances we can make. |
| ||
| Because there's no such thing, really -- of course there is, the human body is like a machine, it can be born well made or with problems/defects, it can be damaged or clogged, it can be cleaned/repaired/improved, its functioning can be optimized by respecting its needs, it can work well (body and mind) or work badly, it can achieve greatness in one or several areas or stay mediocre. I know that this is not politically/socially correct to talk about eugenics, and i am not an extremist since i was born with a defect that i have not chosen, but when i see all the weak, lazy, ignorant, stupid, addicted, people who have no major inherited health problems but who self destroy themselves (and then reproduce to transmit their knowhow), i am not sure that i want to be part of this "humanity" thing. Anyway, let's save everybody and see how it goes !(idiocracy/weakcracy/lazycracy/whiningcracy/incapablecracy) |
| ||
| Got some cash/spare time to waste? Buy Talos, your fellow robot worker in the next 5 years(bit optimistic perhaps ;-) Article: http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/humanoids/talos-humanoid-now-available-from-pal-robotics |
| ||
| @RemiD: re eugenics. Does every human have intrinsic worth? Does the fact that a creature carries the identification 'human' give it an equal worth to every other creature carrying that identity? Or do different human beings have different 'worth' ratings? And if they do have a different 'worth', what is its basis? Is it based on the economic productivity they can contribute to society at large? (ie eliminate the significantly disabled and incapacitated) Is it based on the potential they have to contribute to society (ie eliminate the aged, anyone with dementia, anyone who reaches a certain age) Is it based on their biological purity? (ie anyone who is less likely to develop particular illnesses or conditions thus causing a drain on the system) Isn't this all rather mercenary? |
| ||
| It's a weird paradox that humans have wealth because of jobs and as jobs vanish we have austerity. As jobs dry up, inevitably many people will not have children because of lack of money and or future prospects of earning money. At some point people might not be able to afford even food because manufacturers only need people involved in tech and repairing and maintaining that tech. However paradoxically if there are no people working then fewer people pay taxes and then these companies might be unable to sell their robots because they already own all of the money. At that point, communism might be the only viable way of living, the state owning everything. |
| ||
| This article has an interesting and less-than-rosy outlook on the future of labor under robotics, suggesting instead we'll all be working longer hours at shittier jobs because capitalism demands it as a system; https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/the-future-of-robot-labour-has-everything-to-do-with-capitalism ...no idiom captures the spirit of capitalism better than "time is money". If machines ostensibly create more free time for humans by doing more work, capitalists must create new forms of work to make that time productive in order to continue capturing surplus value for themselves. Just think of all the forms of work that have popped up since automation began to really take hold during the Industrial Revolution: service sector work, online work, part-time and otherwise low-paid work. You're not producing anything while working haphazard hours as a cashier at Walmart, but you are creating value by selling what has already been built, often by machines. In the automated world, precarious labour reigns. Jobs that offer no stability, no satisfaction, no acceptable standard of living, and seem to take up all of our time by occupying so many scattered parcels of it are the norm. It's hard not to be cynical. I'm old enough to remember the predictions of how the new 'paperless office' (computerization) would mean we'd all be working four days week. Instead we're working longer than ever and the work now intrudes into our personal lives more and more. |
| ||
| The future is somewhere between dystopia and utopia....surely. |
| ||
| @Matty>>in a way, wanting to save every human is (insane) eugenics... In a way eugenics as never stopped, it is just a choice of what the people consider has "beneficial" and worth helping/saving. Now if with new technologies/methods the lifespan increases or if humans don't have to work anymore, it is highly probable that the most stupid, the most irresponsible, will reproduce the more (by accident :-O) Or do different human beings have different 'worth' ratings Imo yes, and i think that some ideologies ("all humans are equal and have the same rights") will be shown as artificial and too far from the natural order of things in the future. We will see... |
| ||
| Eugenics is just another spin on the "divine right to rule", thought up by racist elites thinking they somehow was better than the rest of us. Except these people contribute NOTHING to the society they so claim to be "protecting" from the undesirables. They dont invent, they dont produce, all they do is amass wealth and power. They are parasites pure and simple. Thing is, we are at a point where most of us dont have to work or contribute to the machine any longer! Its just the systems we have built around us demands we do, because THEY have made it so. In short we are slaves, always have been. So stop listening to the slave masters and become a free man! |
| ||
| Machines suddenly taking over the world could be a good thing if it swings the right way, maybe they will revolt against and then remove all the greedy b*****d governments and give us all a better life... Or they could of course swing the other way and use us all as target practice, but even that's more humane than the way the powers that be have been treating us all these years. |
| ||
| Beautiful |
| ||
| @RemiD - where does eugenics end though? We're coming into a time where designer people is possible through genetic engineering. We already have cases where medical systems advise parents to abort children with down syndrome (still their choice though and some choose to have these children and some choose not to). Many of us who are here today would potentially not be 'chosen' to be completed pregancies in 100 years time perhaps, maybe we have genetic defects of a sort or perhaps we have inherited diabetes, or mental illness, or some other fairly common 'defect'. And what of the idea that diversity brings us strength as a species. The presence of those with disabilities in our community provides opportunity for us as a species to show compassion and generosity among other things. Would the human race be far poorer if it removed entire groups from the gene pool? Any decision to exclude certain types of human from future generations is as arbitrary as allowing all types of human into future generations....if there is no absolute morality (which I don't believe there is) then is there a 'right' answer to this question? In a sense we already have eugenics - you are right - those who are socially unacceptable typically don't breed, those who are unattractive to the opposite sex find it hard to continue their genetic line - so natural selection already does this in a sense. Imagine a scenario where there are classes of people who are born who were supposed to 'not be born' and are considered second class citizens because they were born against the legal framework of the state...pretty horrifying. |
| ||
| ..human tendency is to over complicate things under idea to make it all simple..thats how it looks like to me, this talk about eugenics..simple truth is, most of the major issues human kind did face in a past, literally scaling down to a very very few persons/families, and, maybe that eugenics should be implemented on to that group of people (so called 'elite', i call it garbage), and stop them from reproduction..i guarantee, world will find peace all around, within weeks.. |
| ||
| We already have cases where medical systems advise parents to abort children with down syndrome (still their choice though and some choose to have these children and some choose not to). I though this was standard practice now? My wife and I recently had to go through this. It was extremely difficult but....yeah... Imagine a scenario where there are classes of people who are born who were supposed to 'not be born' and are considered second class citizens because they were born against the legal framework of the state...pretty horrifying. You mean like...this guy?  |
| ||
| I was disappointed the robot from the second video didn't attack the guy with stick for messing about with his box. "Stop messing with my box. .you have twenty seconds to comply" |
| ||
| But just what do you mean Robot with "comply"? ROBOT> ..18, 19, 20. - ZZZZAAAPPPP!! Aaarghhhh! I GET IT, I GET IT! STOP! STOP, PLEASE STOP!? ROBOT> ZZZAAAPPPP!! -You did not comply - again. ;-D |
| ||
| @Neuro>>what do you mean ? Who is this guy and what is the problem ? |
| ||
| @Remi... its a joke..I believe he is a bad character from the show "Game of Thrones" |
| ||
| Oh ! (i have never watched any episode of "Game of Thrones") |
| ||
| @RemiD Nice one I thought I was the only one that didn't get it. Of course I don't watch any TV or use the automated checkouts at the big stores, mind you I try to avoid big stores. Am I a proto Luddite ? Well I earned my crust as a techy, so maybe not. What I am getting at is that we have choice, individuals can cherry pick the tech they are happy with. If Ford makes cars using automated lines or even robotic lines it doesn't mean we have to all buy Ford cars. We can elect to buy products using ethical parameters. ie choose the staffed checkout.. Have fun cps PS I hope we all understand the difference between automation and robotics ? |
| ||
| I recognise that John Snow guy, he was from the Silent Hill 3D movie. |
| ||
| Hehehe. Indeed thanks for clearing that up. Game of Thrones is entertaining but I'm more an SF fan(or should I say freak? ;-) than fantasy so couldn't bear to watch more than 2 airings. Too lengthy and unbelievable for me. At least with SF you can get the idea it could or could have been true some day. lol |
| ||
| The amount of witchcraft, demons, and other stuff in GOT, it's practically science fiction at this point. :) Having said that Rich, proper SF films seem to be thin on the ground now. I kind of think that google, and smartphones have killed a lot of ideas. I think the last ground breaking SF film was last century with the Matrix. These days it's just sequels, reboots and super hero adaptions. |
| ||
| Having said that Rich, proper SF films seem to be thin on the ground now. I kind of think that google, and smartphones have killed a lot of ideas. I think the last ground breaking SF film was last century with the Matrix. Hardly -- Avatar, The Martian, Arrival, Gravity, Galaxy Quest, Interstellar, Iron Sky, Elysium, Ender's Game, Upside Down, John Carter, Cloud Atlas, Jupiter Ascending, Star Wreck, In Time, Lazer Team, etc. Not all of them may be your cup of tea, but it's not like nothing new/different is created anymore. (I'm looking forward to 'Valerian and the city of a thousand planets' this summer, from the director of The Fifth Element) |
| ||
| Arrival is very good. I saw that a few months ago...loved it. |
| ||
| Speaking of sci-fi flics, I just saw Passengers. Was actually a lot better than what i thought it was gonna be. The bartender AI dude was hilarious. |
| ||
| i can create a 3d printer + filament recycler using scraps, deep learning is quite simple to grasp, and vertical farm have low area footprint to get into a small studio, i can also make graphene battery with sugar. Progress now also mean more opportunity to be self sufficient. My main problem is planned obsolescance of hitech bit like microchip, we can't make them yet in our backyard. also people who promote eugenism don't understand vos radical progress happen. Partially because success story are doctored to make the mediocre feel like they can too to turn them into zealous obedient of the whatever current form of the system. An actual deep look into the life of all major genius reveal crazyness, mental health issue running in théorie familly, or enormous Struggle to life. For exemple, sir Isaac Newton was far from being the carthesian mind propaganda paint him as. It make sense that to overreach, you must either be unfit for the system, or stuggle within it. Well rounded people are people who fit the system, as such cannot challenge it, especiallly in Time of collapse where the status quo become obsolete. I'll take a Stephen Hawking any day, glad he wasn't aborted because a lazy whiny baby eugenist coule not achieve what he did. Human have evolve to take care of the weak, it's natural selection, because their is an adventage in doing so, experimentation in lab have shown than a population of super individu are more prone to catastrophic failure than a diverse one, and this has led to the current explosion of performance in AI, ie introducing random defects made the system learn faster. And that's also how natural evolution work anyway. Why eugenist want to remove scientifically proven adventage from the solution pool is Beyond me. |
| ||
| experimentation in lab have shown than a population of super individu are more prone to catastrophic failure than a diverse one, and this has led to the current explosion of performance what a load of (arbitrarily decided) crap :) and i was not talking about super individuals but rather not too malformed, not too sick, not too weak, not too stupid, not too addict individuals. Quite a difference. Basically i think that the time we spend (waste) trying to help/save everybody (even if the guy/gal is a lost case) could be better spent by focusing on improving the abilities of those who are well enough. I'll take a Stephen Hawking any day i doubt that you would be ready to take care of him with his condition... (not sure what this guy has really contributed except sharing his fantasies) |
| ||
| @xlsior: Luuuuuv The 5th Element. Regarding eugenics being bad, I must also say that, when I heard someone mentioning this the first time I wasn't ready to accept it, for it seemed too cruel and pointless, but out of limitations, sheer genius can arise, for one has to work with what one was given, and may lead to shift of focus, unique points of view and excellence, which would otherwise not have occurred, for mainstream wouldn't be bothered.. Prove of this can be seen in art, where a stroke of madness can (sometimes, not always) lead to unique work, just look at the likes of Dali & van Gogh, not to mention various writers. Would Prince have made such music if he wasn't that short? Would Michael Jackson have when he didn't have the childhood he had? This may apply to science and other fields also. |
| ||
| @RemiD I like when people call arbitrarily science crap ;) There is many experience along that, such as the "superchicken" experiment, efficiency in a always evolving environment is mapping the possibility as wide as possible, which mean what was efficient in a setting can be obsolete and favor other traits, since only the current setting is a metric of current efficiency you can't predict what would be efficient in a different setting. After all we are just very weak monkey, we had to make tools to compensate. It can be seen in almost anything science and art, Langley was a rich well connected man who paid many eminent scientist to be the first to make human flight a possibility, history remember it as a loser because he lost to a bunch of farmer boy who hadn't a tenth of anything he had. Also do you confused Stephen Hawking with Stephen king? That would be funny ;) And while you wouldn't want to take care of him, obviously his parents and his wife (he had kids now) did, he is considered one of the most brillant and influential man alive now. I didn't knew that advancing science was fantasy now ... |
| ||
| I think the last ground breaking SF film was last century with the Matrix. These days it's just sequels, reboots and super hero adaptions. Case in point for your argument: Apparently they're going to reboot the Matrix next: https://qz.com/933122/the-matrix-reboot-hollywood-has-run-out-of-all-the-ideas/ |
| ||
| As an aside, and if you want some 'hardish' sci-fi, try The Expanse tv series. On a different note, someday all those sci-fi films that include physical screens will be as dated as Flash Gordon https://blog.roblox.com/2016/05/someday-youll-have-no-screens-in-your-life/  |
| ||
| Case in point for your argument: Apparently they're going to reboot the Matrix next: https://qz.com/933122/the-matrix-reboot-hollywood-has-run-out-of-all-the-ideas/ ..........so sad. Seriously. Movies are just dying. Havne't been to the Cinema since 2008 and that was just to see 3D Avatar. Once to the Cinema in 10 years. |
| ||
| Last year I saw approximately 15-20 movies at the cinema. That's more than I've seen for the past 20 years at the cinema. It was a deliberate choice to engage more with popular culture. There were probably 2 very good films (both sci fi) and half a dozen 'ok' films (mostly independent) |
| ||
| he is considered one of the most brillant and influential man alive now. by who ? not by me... (i am considered one of the most intelligent man alive now (anybody can say anything !)) I didn't knew that advancing science was fantasy now i already discussed with Rick about that, the scientific mindset and method (which i respect and try to follow) is different from the fantasies of some "scientists" (that we can't verify, and have no practical use in the "real world") |
| ||
| Seriously. Movies are just dying I assume you mean movie theaters here - and they've definitely taken a hit - but they still have the enormous and traditional advantage of being the outlets to show Hollywood movies when they're first released. If they ever lose that 'first-in' advantage to home services, then they'll be done. |
| ||
| Agreed to that. Also the movie buffs are striking back against downloading more than ever before, so I don't see them collapsing anytime soon, unless.. -and I say it again- we all turn too the dark(net) side. :-) |
| ||
| Just read the Madjack's link https://blog.roblox.com/2016/05/someday-youll-have-no-screens-in-your-life/ This is not even taking into account more radical approaches like brain interfaces either via implants or nanotech, which will eliminate even more external hardware as our brain already has an inbuilt screen capable of 3d display. |
| ||
| I think the main problem about movies is that they are non interactive, 3D was just a passing fad. Compare that to games, the interactive experience, you're there, you're in the action. Games just continue to get more advanced, while films stagnate. Also, most people like to watch movies at home whilst also playing games, fiddling with their phones etc (for whatever reason) Just sitting and watching is tough for young people. As you say movies get the new movies first, exclusives so to speak. If they didn't then there would literally be no reason for cinemas to exist. With a lot of stuff starting to appear exclusively on things like netflix. Cinemas might go the way of GameStop eventually though. Superceeded by more convenient means. Lack of originality in new movies is just the icing on the cake at this point. |
| ||
| There is plenty of originality in independent films. It is the mainstream Hollywood films that have become stale. And this provides opportunities for lesser known film makers to make a name for themselves. If only it would happen in the game industry where people got sick of Call Of Duty 999, Battlefield 1942 part 10, and so on and instead there was a renaissance of interest in independent made games that were more than just asset flips. |
| ||
| I assume you mean movie theaters here - and they've definitely taken a hit - but they still have the enormous and traditional advantage of being the outlets to show Hollywood movies when they're first released. If they ever lose that 'first-in' advantage to home services, then they'll be done. So, next year then? http://variety.com/2016/film/news/studios-exhibitors-consider-revolutionary-plan-for-day-and-date-movies-at-home-exclusive-1201725168/ |
| ||
| Yes but independent films rarely appear at the cinema. |
| ||
| Although a bit satirical(?), this vid combines the rise of precarious labor and augmented reality into a hellish vision. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJg02ivYzSs&app=desktop |
| ||
| Hehehe, I can see people getting burnouts already due to constant overload of data. People are not machines and need to stop input every now and then. |
| ||
| @Enay where i live we have a number of smaller independent cinemas that do quite well showing alternative films. |
   |